| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa North |
| Analysis: What Went Wrong with Islamists in Libya |
| 2012-07-22 |
| [Tripoli Post] By Mohammad Azeemullah While Arab Spring has witnessed the rise of Islamic parties to prominence, notably Moslem Brüderbund in Egypt and Ennahda in Tunisia, Libya has chosen to go the other way. After seven months of constant NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions... bombings and perilous civil war in Libya, what did Libya need instantly after the revolution? Did they need schools or colleges to be reconstructed or did they need the separation of boys and girls on the campus? Did they need their economy to be brought back on track or did they need markets and shops for ladies to be closed? Did they need to act for peace or did they need to widen social differences by destructing historical monuments? Did they need to work out to reconstitute army for stability or did they need militias to remain with their arms forever? What did they need? If one asks public these questions, their spontaneous answers go in favour of reconstruction, economy, peace and stability rather than those in contrast. That is where Islamists have miserably failed to appeal to the masses. While they were engaged in clean-up operation of what contradicted Islam in visiting shrines, the Liberalsled by the National Forces Alliance (NFA) were making a convincing case about practical issues to win the heart and mind of the public. Libya's political case is completely different from those of Egypt and Tunisia and from those of Moslem Brüderbund and Ennahda. Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, people in Libya, from the start, took guns to get rid of the dictator whose sole mission was to coerce and rule whatever the price. They spilled blood and went through critical phase of war, and thus their regard and value to 'freedom'exceed far more than those of other neighboring countries. Instead of taking up existential issues to deal with and see to end ongoing crisis in the country, Islamists chose to look to the other way. Well! Not all the parties under Islamic fold are to be criticized for the same reason as to why they failed to perform in the elections but certainly such actions as those of attacking Sufi shrines...Sidi Abdul-Salam Al-Asmar Al-Fituri in Zliten and the tomb of Zuhayr Ibn Qais Al-Balawi at the Sahaba Mosque in Derna have tarnished their image. Instead of using a path of consensus and agreement to decide about the continued existence of Sufi shrines, they went on offensive unilaterally. Any undemocratic action is likely to backfire. Public in general sensed if Islamistscame to power, possibly they might take away their hard-earned freedom and impose rules which contradict the fundamentalprinciples of 17th February. That is how Mohammad Ahmad Al-Sheriff, a teacher by professionin Zliten puts it: 'People confront far graver issues to deal with than those invented by the Islamists. Truly, the recent actions and outbursts bySalafists ...Salafists are ostentatiously devout Moslems who figure the ostentation of their piety gives them the right to tell others how to do it and to kill those who don't listen to them... certainly implied that if they came to power, they might impose restrictions they did not wish. We have had enough of that by Qadaffy. We do not want any more in any form'. He added: 'Most of the Islamic parties in Libya have good intentions but a few among them have certainly spoiled the image.' The result of the election might show Islamists vs Liberals in terms of winning the seats but the ground fact is that there is no division among the public over the line of religious thoughts. Mohammad Mukhtar, a common man in Libya puts it thus: 'It is not about why we did not vote Islamic parties. It is about why we do not support those who wish to improve the system of the country...Mahmoud Jibril is a hope for millions. Even if he had joined Islamic Party, he could have won. It is about the man and his conviction'. He further complemented, 'Had Islamists taken the same cause, people would have voted them to power. It is not about religion. It is about development. After all, we are all God- abiding citizens.' Most people in Libya are religious and follow them in their actual course of life. What they do not like is something being imposed upon them what they are already actually practicing. No one should forget that Islamists had played major role in the victory against Qadaffy. People would have voted them to power if they had sensibly taken up challenging issues toward reconstruction of the country. It is not too late. There is still time to reflect upon what went wrong and alter the strategy that takes more pressing issues into concern. The rest will automatically follow. The country needs development. People wish to see Libya more as an emerging nation to the world stage than get embroiled into conflicting issues and be left behind. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 Perhaps we should ask the Syrian Rebs ... * DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > ROBERT FISK: SECTARIANISM BITES DEEP INTO SYRIAN REBELS. ARTIC = ditto as per Ethnicities. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-07-22 23:13 |
| #3 To ask what went wrong assumes there was a time when it was possible for things to go right. Given the cast of characters, I find that dubious. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2012-07-22 16:26 |
| #2 He added: 'Most of the Islamic parties in Libya have good intentions but a few among them have certainly spoiled the image.' "the 93% bad have spoiled it for the 7% good" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-07-22 13:18 |
| #1 No Taliban style theocracy (yet) just Sharia - all is well. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2012-07-22 10:56 |